Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2005 husband and wife were attacked outside a restaurant; husband died, wife was seriously injured. Six months after the attack, wife sued husband's parents, seeking part of husband's large estate. Wife was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 1958(a), for use of interstate facilities in murder-for-hire about 26 months after filing the civil suit. The district court dismissed, based on wife's failure to appear at a deposition, delays, and failure to comply with court orders.The First Circuit affirmed, noting repeated and flagrant abuses in the record and the failure of alternative approaches. None of wife's excuses for her extreme misconduct were sufficient to save the case.

Defendants and 16 others were charged with distribution and conspiracy to distribute controlled substances including 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and marijuana (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), 846) and aiding and abetting. Defendants were convicted. The First Circuit vacated, holding that the evidence at trial against the two prejudicially varied from the conspiracy charge in the indictment. The evidence indicated two separate conspiracies, one based in Maine and one in Massachusetts, with materially different goals. There was little evidence that the defendants joined in the Maine-based conspiracy to distribute both drugs, as alleged. Even if defendants did join in the Massachusetts conspiracy to distribute only cocaine, they were unfairly prejudiced by the difference between that conspiracy and the one alleged in the indictment.

The Mississippi Public Employees' Retirement System filed a class action, claiming that senior management of a publicly traded manufacturer of medical devices in which it invested, withheld material information and made misleading statements about devices for treating coronary artery disease, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78t(a), and Securities Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5. In an earlier opinion, the First Circuit reversed dismissal, finding that the inference of scienter advanced by the plaintiff was at least as cogent and compelling as the contrary inference, satisfying the "strong inference" pleading standard of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. After discovery, the district court entered summary judgment in favor of defendants. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that plaintiff did not produce evidence that would support a reasonable inference of scienter. Given the statements and disclosures that defendants did make concerning the devices, they had no obligation to disclose the fact that they were working on an improvement that would reduce the very small number of no-deflate complaints that they received, and of which the market was aware.

After opening fire on officers attempting to arrest him, defendant was charged as a felon in possession of ammunition (18 U.S.C. 922 (g)); assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, and interfering with a detective who had been deputized as a special federal office (18 U.S.C. 1111); and using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence (18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)). He unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the second count, arguing that section 111 did not apply because the detective was working as a local police officer under local supervision at the time. The First Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e). vidence was sufficient for a rational jury to conclude that the officer was engaged in federal duties at the relevant time. The court rejected various evidentiary challenges.

National Organization for Marriage challenged the constitutionality of Maine election laws (Me.Rev.Stat. title 21A sec. 1052) as overbroad under the First Amendment and so vague in its terms, particularly with respect to the phrase "for the purpose of influencing," as to violate due process. The laws govern registration of political action committees and reporting of independent expenditures. The district court upheld the law. The First Circuit affirmed, first holding that the organization had standing. The record showed that its fears were objectively reasonable and led to self-censorship. With respect to the overbreadth claim, the court rejected an argument based on the distinction between issue discussion and express advocacy, characterizing the distinction as irrelevant and applying the "exacting scrutiny" standard because the law does not prohibit, limit, or impose any onerous burdens on speech, but merely requires maintenance and disclosure of certain financial information. There is a "substantial relation" between Maine's informational interest and each of the laws at issue. The terms "promoting," "support," "opposition," "influencing," "expressly advocate" and "initiation" are sufficiently clear.

Plaintiff designs, manufactures, and sells computer mice and, in 1995, contracted with defendant to manufacture the products in bulk. The agreement identifies the "Product" as inventions, designs, methods and related information concerning computer mouse products and precludes defendant from disclosing, using, or copying "Confidential Information," or manufacturing, or otherwise commercially exploiting the Product, or developing other products derived from the Product. In 2009, defendant began to make near copies using plaintiff's production tooling, Plaintiff claimed violation of the New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act, N.H. Rev. Stat. 350-B:1 to -B:9 and breach of contract. The district court entered a preliminary injunction, ordering defendant to stop production of the copies. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the relief was appropriate, based on the record.

Husband entered the U.S. in 2002, using a false Italian passport and wife entered on a temporary tourist visa that subsequently expired. Both are citizens of Albania. In 2003, husband applied for asylum and withholding of removal and listed wife as a derivative beneficiary. Later, wife applied for asylum. The the Immigration Judge denied both relief. The Board of Immigration appeals affirmed. The First Circuit vacated and remanded. The IJ and the Board did not give a persuasive explanation for rejecting the claim of past persecution.The threats and violence against husband were substantial and continued over almost a decade; they were arguably based on interrelated motives related to his political beliefs and his job at the Albanian Supreme Court. The persecution involved attacks on his children. Changed country conditions do not automatically trump specific evidence.

Defendant has a long history as a victim and as a perpetrator of sexual abuse and was convicted in 2002, for possession of child pornography. In 2006, a day before his scheduled release from custody, the Bureau of Prisons filed a petition to have defendant civilly committed as a "sexually dangerous person" under 18 U.S.C. 4248. The court ordered commitment. The First Circuit affirmed, first rejecting a challenge to the constitutionality of the Adam Walsh Act. Rejecting an argument that defendant was not legally "in custody" because he should have been released a day earlier, the court stated that serious danger to interpret the Act to mandate release of a potentially dangerous individual due to a de minimis mistake in the timing of initiating the commitment process would be manifestly inconsistent with its intent. The determination that defendant is sexually dangerous was well-supported.

National Organization for Marriage challenged the constitutionality of Rhode Island election laws as overbroad under the First Amendment and so vague in its terms as to violate due process. The laws govern registration of political action committees, contributions to and expenditures on behalf of candidates, and reporting of independent expenditures. The organization claimed that it would refrain from certain political activities if required to register as a PAC, but would comply with independent expenditures under protest. After receiving assurances that the organization could engage in its planned speech without registering as a PAC, the district court denied a preliminary injunction, noting the minimal burden imposed by the law and the valuable governmental interest underlying it. The First Circuit affirmed, finding that the organization had not demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits.